A state district judge granted the request Thursday, but the Texas Supreme Court directed the lower court to vacate its order on Monday.
Evil. If you vote republican you support this evil.
They are evil.
We’ve known this for years. Such people are either too stupid or scumbags. Speaking as a former Republican.
Or just brainwashed. Having grown up in a conservative, christian, home-school household I was told to vote R no matter what. I didn’t really know any better until I got out into the “real world” and understood what a bullshit take that was.
I now vote “fuck the GQP” every chance I get. That included the recent ballot issues here in Ohio for abortion rights and legal marijuana.
I would also call myself agnostic from a religious perspective. Though I would lean more atheist if pressed.
Dude no shit? I grew up in a rural Appalachian Christian household, homeschooled. I also consider myself agnostic.
Several things influenced major changes in my household. While my parents marched in pro-life DC rallies and were somewhat religious, my dad was a hippie in his early years and anti-Vietnam, and my mom is truly a very empathetic person. After Bush invaded Iraq, that combined with what I consider the wild west of the internet helped break them out of the echo-chamber.
Ultimately we all flipped 180 to progressive Dems over the years.
Those fascists wont be able to do anything to stop it once She leaves the state.
I believe the Texas law allows citizens to sue anyone who helps her get the abortion, so conceivably an airline pilot or bus driver or a significant other who drives her, could be sued. They can’t stop it after she leaves the state, but they can retaliate against anyone who helps her.
Sound like some Nazi shit.
It sounds that way, because it is that way.
This stupid law has not been tested in court yet. It seems destined for the Supreme Court in the end, which I bet rules against it, because it’s awarding damages to random people who have not been damaged
It would be interesting if she used a major corporation. I know no non-public info but let’s say she got a flight on American Airlines.
The Texas government suing American Airlines in a civil case(both parties have an army of lawyers and funds to defend themselves) over this would probably set legal precident.
I don’t agree with the law, just stating that the resulting suit would be interesting to follow.
deleted by creator
I think they were just side stepping since they paused the lower courts ruling and then when they found out she left the state they dismissed their ruling as moot and then just went and overturned the lower courts. Pretty fucking spineless but they can still throw a supposed W and make themselves out to upholding values or some other BS talking point.
So is the court is throwing out the law or saying that the state doesn’t get to question physicians, which would logically have the same result?
both the discretion and responsibility
It’s neither. They want the medical gridlock where physicians are afraid to perform abortions, all while keeping them technically legal.
“A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a life-saving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment,” it said in its decision.
Kimberly Mutcherson, a professor of law at Rutgers Law School, said that part of what the Texas Supreme Court judges had to consider was whether they wanted “to be in the business of having every single medical exemption case end up” in their hands.
As the people above me have said it’s that the courts are not to be pre-determining the validity of every instance where an abortion is claimed to meet the statutory exemption, and the consequential effect is that no woman wants to proceed in state and no doctor will touch it both for fear of being charged criminally and/or sued civilly. Nobody wants to be a test case that can cause that person criminal prosecution, civil prosecution, legal expenses, loss of medical license, loss of ability to support themselves and their families, and god knows what vigilante actions from the lunatic holy rollers. It’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation, especially with Paxton threatening to bring the full weight of the government of the State of Texas against you. All of which is just how the Republicans who passed this wanted. They only put the exemption in there to make the law give the appearance of giving a shit about the mother’s health.
The court is saying they don’t want to be involved and that the law ‘allows for abortions in cases of medical emergency.’ The problem is the state is separately saying that they’ll prosecute her for trying to get an abortion in the state. Basically Texas is trying to have it both ways where the state courts claim she is already entitled to have an abortion so there is no legal dispute, while the state is saying she’ll be prosecuted for having an abortion.
Wait, so it’s fine to forcibly risk the life of the mother just because some pedo in a robe said sky daddy says it’s wrong… I’m getting this right ay?
There’s instructions in their little book on how to perform one, so it’s even more arbitrary than that.
Republicans are trying real hard to lose more seats across the country I see.
And failing for as hard as they’re trying. They may lose a few seats here and there, but not in the numbers they “should” because the Dems can’t help but fumble the ball. You can decide for yourself whether that’s purposeful or by accident. I can never make my mind up.
I am convinced it is on purpose at this point.
I actually read the 7 page opinion, because normally there is at least some shred of reasonableness in these crazy opinions. But this one … those 7 pages have nothing.
I’ll just leave this little nugget from the end:
The points we have made above provide some clarity about the legal standards and framework for this sensitive area of Texas law. The courts cannot go further by entering into the medical-judgment arena.
The really telling part of all of this is that there was no reason for this to be a thing. The state attorney general chose to fight this specific case. Then chose to send a letter to every hospital saying the injunction did not actually protect them, and chose to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
None of that had to happen. He could have let the extreme cases go through while fighting to remove women’s rights on the more “controversial” cases, but instead chose to make a test case out the most extreme interpretation of his extremist ideology.
Despite this, the court seems willfully blind to the fact that the reason for needing an injunction is that the state is acting in demonstorable bad faith.
Side note. Remember when the US SC ruled that this law could not be challenged because the state was not going to be the one enforcing it?
